Goon2 wrote:
2. The underlying problem signing him to a 1.9MM contract this year is what are you going to pay him next year? Because unless he triples his output and throws up 35 goals as the Twins Bouncee, he won't be worth 1.9MM. Does anyone think he's going to take a pay cut in 2007-08? Of course not. If we actually match the offer, there is no way he'll be around for next year. So then why would we overpay for him now?

If he doesn't improve significantly this year, then the Canucks can take him to arbitration. I think all the players know that he benefitted from a wild poaching attempt this year and his salary can be brought back in line next year if neccessary. The players also realize that this type of action will make RFA negotiations a little more favorable for the players. I don't think their will be any backlash against Kesler if we keep him.

However I don't think Kesler is staying. One year/$1.9mil is simply too much for someone who scored 10 goals. Especially when you take in to effect what it'll take to resign him next season. Once he gets paid 1.9, that price is only going to go up. And exponentially if he had a good season.

Goon2 wrote:
2. The underlying problem signing him to a 1.9MM contract this year is what are you going to pay him next year? Because unless he triples his output and throws up 35 goals as the Twins Bouncee, he won't be worth 1.9MM. Does anyone think he's going to take a pay cut in 2007-08? Of course not. If we actually match the offer, there is no way he'll be around for next year. So then why would we overpay for him now?

If he doesn't improve significantly this year, then the Canucks can take him to arbitration. I think all the players know that he benefitted from a wild poaching attempt this year and his salary can be brought back in line next year if neccessary. The players also realize that this type of action will make RFA negotiations a little more favorable for the players. I don't think their will be any backlash against Kesler if we keep him.

Good points. I didn't know (obviously) he'd be eligible for arbitration.

While agree with your first comment, the second one would apply to most of those playing the game today.

Welcome to the new NHL. I'm surprised it's taken this long to "unearth" some of the warts in the new CBA.

IMO the only issue here is Clarke's inability to put a true market value on an asset, thereby driving up the value of an untested player and more importantly a new bench mark for future players with less than stellar stats.

Unfortunatley Kesler will be the one to swing in the breeze for Clarke's ineptness.

TSN reported (who knows if it's correct) that the two sides were ready to sign on a deal of 825 and 850K over two years. Then along came Clarke.

Who in their right mind at this point in their career would turn down an offer twice what your current boss was offering ?

Based on compensation Clarke knew what he was doing, and so, I might add, does Nonis when he matches the offer.

To those who say Kesler should think of the team first because he is now responsible for limiting the Nux and their options, they should also include all the other players who are currently signed. This argument is no different IMO.

ClamRussel wrote:I wonder....can Nonis trade Kesler's rights BEFORE he matches, thus allowing the new team to "match?"

Clarke is an asshole

Kesler is a selfish prick

What has happened is Kesler is now taking ONE million dollars that he has NOT earned , held the Canucks ransom and taken away Nonis' ability to add a player at the deadline. Nonis now has NO wiggle room unless he now trades ANOTHER player (since Kesler is thus untradeable). Good job asshat, nice to know Kesler is the consumate TEAM player. The next Trevor Linden my ass! This should make him a popular guy at the Xmas party.

That's pretty harsh to say. Sure he was asking more then he was worth, but it was Clarke who gave him the offer. If you were offered better money for the same job you're doing at a rival company I would bet you would take it.

Not a good comparison at all.
We aren't hockey players in the sports entertainment business. Most of us could leave our job, and our former bosses could find a comparable employee the very next day. If Kesler signs with Philadelphia, we don't get another Ryan Kesler. Our companies might not be operating precariously close to their maximum budget.

What Kesler has done is hamstrung the ability of his GM to make a trade at the deadline, or to shore up the team if we face injuries again this year. Trevor Linden is a team player and took LESS many than he could have got somewhere else, because he likes the city and he believes in the team concept. Ryan Kesler will be earning double his worth, and hurting the ability of his team to improve, because he obviously does not understand this team concept.

Bingo! Thats exactly what I was getting at. The irony is, by taking almost 3x what he's worth.....and tying Nonis' hands....and hurting the team....Kesler might have a worse year statistically AND affect how far they go in the playoffs....therego reducing his future bargaining power & contracts. By taking the less the team as a WHOLE could improve=larger contracts for everyone all around. Happens everytime a TEAM has success....remember the '94 squad? One by one we started losing players (ie Craven, Diduck, Ronning etc).

I don't buy this BS the media is spouting off about on how they don't blame Kesler for taking the offer. Its a TEAM sport and for a team to have success, winning must take a priority over individual contracts. All Kesler had to do was be patient, develop, climb up the depth chart and he'll have a decade of HUGE contracts in front of him. Who wants to be his agent orchestrated this deal and pushed him to do it? Still we're all responsible for our own actions. In the big picture, Kesler has hurt himself and the club....he was set to sing for 1.9 over 2 yrs.....I think he would have gotten by just fine w/o needing to clip coupons. He had to KNOW the Canucks wouldn't walk away from this offer, they just can't afford to loose 1st round picks that ARE panning out....because so few do.

smalien wrote:To those who say Kesler should think of the team first because he is now responsible for limiting the Nux and their options, they should also include all the other players who are currently signed. This argument is no different IMO.

You're forgetting one small difference....all those players are signed at where their value is worth....some got higher contracts because of a PROVEN track record and/or Unrestricted free agency. Kesler's numbers are inflated only because that was the most Clarke could pay and not loose a 1st round pick combined with hopefully preventing the Canucks from matching. It was merely a game to rob us of a top young player (sleazy but within the rules). Kesler was treated by Clarke as a two-bit whore while married to Nonis (so their marriage wasn't perfect but they were working on it).

Island Nucklehead wrote:Kesler better prove his worth...what a low blow by Clarke (should expect nothing less out of the guy). I hope he realizes what he's unleashed on the league when every one of his young guys is poached over the next couple years. What a tool to offer such a contract. Nonis should have let him take it and eat his own lunch when all his young guns come of age.

rikster wrote:I find it ironic that this went down on the heels of the Brodeur book wherein he talks about his reasons for not using an agent...

I think at the end of the day Kesler got very bad long term advise from his agent which he will regret...

Thats a great point. An agent to an athlete=a defence attorney to the accused.

The flaw in both models is a complete lack of ethics. A defence attorney is supposed to be there to insure a FAIR trial...but has morphed into now getting their client off at all costs regardless of guilt. Justice and fairness is not even remotely on the horizon. Agents are there to simply get the largest amount of money possible and thus a bigger cut for themselves.....fair enough but they don't have to be in the dressing room for the next X yrs...their problem is they don't even consider this is a team game and involves teammates and <gasp> winning. Sometimes LESS is MORE....ie a smaller contract in the right situation can lead to greener pastures down the road, the bigger picture. Agents tend to have tunnel vision and can be prone to giving bad career advice. Brendan Witt sitting out an entire yr of hockey (over $) is a good example....he was giftwrapped a guarantee of being Kevin Hatcher's d partner as a ROOKIE for a decent paycheque.....but held out for the rookie maximum which never came btw. How many yrs would it take for him to make up for the lost year in salary AND development. Great advice!

the Cunning Linguist wrote:And what of Nolan Baumgartner, good ol' Calgary boy who signed with the Flyers this summer for $1.2M. Or Montreal-native Roberto Luongo, who agreed to a long term contract for approximately $6.75M with Vancouver when he could have said "No, no, Nonis, that's about $3M more than I need and besides you need to tie up Kesler, re-sign Carter, and Jovanovski"...

Players like Ruutu, Jovo & Baumer left as unrestricted free agents....I have no problem w/ that. Get what you can.....they've EARNED it and its expected. They didn't put a gun to Nonis' head like Kesler did...Nonis knew what he was getting into when he traded for Luongo. Its now starting to become clear why RJ & Kesler were such good buddies, peas in a pod.

ClamRussel wrote: You're forgetting one small difference....all those players are signed at where their value is worth....some got higher contracts because of a PROVEN track record and/or Unrestricted free agency. Kesler's numbers are inflated only because that was the most Clarke could pay and not loose a 1st round pick combined with hopefully preventing the Canucks from matching. It was merely a game to rob us of a top young player (sleazy but within the rules). Kesler was treated by Clarke as a two-bit whore while married to Nonis (so their marriage wasn't perfect but they were working on it).

While I agree that the others were signed under different circumstances with regard to their worth, the last one in the pool isn't necessarily the one who pissed in it.

ClamRussel wrote: They didn't put a gun to Nonis' head like Kesler did.

A Kesler quote from this mornings Province:

"I was really surprised that Philly came to my agent with an offer. It's a great honour to be wanted by a club like that and get an offer sheet, period."

and: "You can't blame Kes at all," said Morrison. "Is he supposed to turn it down? I don't think any one of us in here would."

The polls have shown that approximately half the people who voted wanted Nonis to match the offer. The other half wanted Kesler's head and a second round pick.

Just as this thread is showing, some of us are siding with Morrison's take on the whole mess. We just agree to disagree.

ClamRussel wrote: You're forgetting one small difference....all those players are signed at where their value is worth....some got higher contracts because of a PROVEN track record and/or Unrestricted free agency. Kesler's numbers are inflated only because that was the most Clarke could pay and not loose a 1st round pick combined with hopefully preventing the Canucks from matching. It was merely a game to rob us of a top young player (sleazy but within the rules). Kesler was treated by Clarke as a two-bit whore while married to Nonis (so their marriage wasn't perfect but they were working on it).

While I agree that the others were signed under different circumstances with regard to their worth, the last one in the pool isn't necessarily the one who pissed in it.

Either way, Clarke can't have it both ways....he was whining about losing Johnsson for nothing, said Nonis would get compensation unlike Dallas when we took Mitchell.....yet Clarke has historically been one of the worst 'offenders' in poaching UFAs to improve his team......Hatcher, Rathje, Forsberg, Roenick etc etc. He only brings up examples to back up his position yet if that isn't the kettle calling the teapot black I don't know what is.